Yes, and if you can afford an Xserve it would be really great. The 5.3 release is now Mac OS X only. Previous versions let you develop on Mac OS X or Windows and deploy on Windows, Mac OS X Server or Solaris. Now only Mac OS X server is supported for deployment. You must buy the OS X server license to get a deployment license for 1 server. (minimum 500 dollars) Also, 5.3 is free to develop with on OS X, but OS X server still does not ship with 5.3 licenses. There are many bugs in 5.3 as well, although it is a development version and only available through ADC right now.
To clarify a few points: 1. It is dev on OSX only - yup. 2. They only sell deployment licences for OSX Server - yup. 3. BUT! At WWDC they stated that you can deploy the development version on any java platform. They also stated that they were not lawyers, so whatever.
The learning curve is steep! I have yet to find any new bugs in 5.3 - though the new webobjects builder (web UI design) is certianly more flakey (save early, save often).
I don't read the apple mailing list, so I don't know what they say there, but there has been a point releast for the first time in a couple of years, so I don't think it is dead.
What I *do* think is that the company isn't sure what they are going to do with it - the fact that the developer version is free and can be used for deployment on any platform makes me think there have been changes in strategy recently.
I've used FreeBSD for years. years and years. Back in the 4 days (4.5?) we were told we'd get a native Java (modern). It failed to happen, and for some reason the FreeBSD train seemed to ship versions way more often than it used to.
My other big gripe has been the/usr/ports system. If I cd/usr/ports make update I expect it to do the right thing (which may be quiz me on how I want to update, etc, the first time) and for it to all happen magically. The fact that it does NOT magically do that out of the box pisses me off. Yeah, I want my server software provider to be customer oriented. I hear they are actually doing something right in that area coming up. 'Bout freakin time.
My next server will be OSX. BSD, native Java, no "recompile everything" for things like the OpenSSH bug a year or so ago. Magical updates./rant
In my "Computers and Society" class in CompSci (which I took in my junior year), the TA asked "Who is in Computer Science because they like to program?"
I raised my hand. I looked around. I was the only one in a class of about 25 with my hand up.
I dropped out around the end of that quarter, and went on to do what I love doing, and not wasting time with folks who were there for... something else.
Are we living in a society with no honor? Are we living in a time when everything that is wrong is okay, the "poor me" I did not mean to do it, but it was too tempting?
What you're selling is personal irresponsibility under the guise of personal responsibility.
If I open a bank and leave the place empty and unlocked at night, it is not my fault that people walk in and take all the money. It is their fault.
But it is absolutely my fault that I didn't lock things up securely. There ARE bad people out there. To imagine otherwise is one's own fault - there is more than enough evidence to support that notion. The bank in the example is being irresponsible. It is their fault that they didn't take the appropriate precautions.
If the WiFi is broadcasting into my home, it is reducing my ability to use the bandwidth myself, secured or not.
Take that up with the FCC. You can't do much about your neighbors tree that does NOT hang over your yard, but which blocks your sun/view. At least not in this neighborhood. If you want a clear view, you should take up the issue with the FCC and demand that nobody be able to use WiFi that [may] interfere with their neighbor's. But that would suck, so we have the rules we have (which may also suck, but that's another story).
And if the neighbor says "hey, those apples are mine - please let me come over and gather them up", my response would be "Okay. Don't forget to rake up the leaves that fall on my side this autumn too then".
Right - the point is that you start a conversation and hopefully arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Like how about I pitch in some and another neighbor pitches in some, and we all get more bandwidth than any of us would have had individually.
But when the apple tree hangs over your yard, nobody would sue you for making apple pie from the apples above your yard.
Well, nobody reasonable.
If the WiFi is broadcasting into my home, you'd better believe I'm gonna use it.
But if the apple tree is netted, or the neighbor comes over and says "hey, those apples are mine - please let me come over and gather them up", we're talking about something altogether different.
This is true, but only so far as it's a possibility. Plus many of us use a hardware firewall. Rootkits won't beat that. Plus all the time the zombie's host is offline, the clients aren't getting their messages. And many ISPs have restrictions on their customers running servers - all the incoming connections would be a red flag.
When the zombie host changes IP - oops all those messages vanish.
Plus the zombie has to know the IP address, many hosts are using NAT.
All this is true, but still makes it trivial for the zombie nets to decide on a few nodes that remain up, and send out receipts from the rest.
It would make identifying the senders trivial. Then something can be done.
... Just like SPF, except SPF doesn't totally change SMTP...
They can send out LESS traffic (just notifications)...
This is entirely true. But they get more incoming traffic, with extra overhead.
Not buying it. The incoming request is trivial, right? "Give me the message for receipt: BLAH". That is not meaningfully more than SMTP HELO junk. What's more, you could send 1000's of phishing receipts "joebloe@hoser.com" and only have to feed the ones that come back for the message. This makes phishing easier. And by easier, I mean trivial - imagine 1000 zombies sending out receipts 24/7; each one just a few 10s of bytes. Shudder.
Zombie PC's will still be the preferred senders.
You will still be able to host messages on any machine and send out receipts from other machines.
XP service pack 2 brings a software firewall by default. When incoming connections are prevented, zombies will be unable to host.
You're kidding, right? Once a machine is rooted, down goes the firewall.
And it will be costly to set up a permanent host with enough bandwidth. Sure you can still spam but how much more is it gonna cost when you can't use zombies.
There is just a little more overhead in finding the zombies that are up 24/7. And given that they'll all continue to congregate on irc nets, it's a trivial process to manage.
You didn't mention that the zombies could still send messages from the hosts email accounts. This is true, but immediately idenitifies the zombie!
I don't get it. How is that a relief? Who would do that? How is that substantially different from SMTP, where I know the transmitting IP address and can determine if they are a spam sender/relay?
You're just making the spammer's job easier. They can send out LESS traffic (just notifications), and wait for the receivers to retry retrieving the message until they have a moment to spare.
Zombie PC's will still be the preferred senders.
You will still be able to host messages on any machine and send out receipts from other machines.
As the parent said, you're just providing verification of the reciever's address. Your notion seems to solve nothing.
Not everyone can just drop everything at will, even on a desktop system. Sometimes programs must stay up.
If it is a desktop system - used by a real human being - and it "must stay up", then you're an ass. Systems crash all by themselves. Only a fool would put a mission critical "must stay up" program on a user's desktop.
Mmkay, just one quick showcase. My logitech usb mouse has a windows driver, which needs restart when installed, then I tweak its settings.
Yeah, so does mine, but it was a month before I decided to install it for the extra functionality. The first time I just plugged it in and it worked. This on Win2K and OSX. I'd hope that the same would be true on *bsd/linux/etc.
And when you said "tweak its settings", I bet you didn't mean by hand. And you didn't mean you had to guess or look up the right magic online.
As for the "and I had to reboot the machine" bullshit -- nobody gives a fuck. If you are in a situation where it's bad for you to reboot your machine, and you don't have redundant servers, you're just an ass. If you're not in that situation, WTF do we care?
From what I understand of it, Germany's solution seems the best. For all products, it is the retailer's responsibility to recycle or appropriately dispose of the packaging/leftover material. This means that (for example) supermarkets can pressure snackfood manufacturers to not super-package their products (big plastic boxes). It puts resellers in the position of being the consumer's advocate for sane packaging - which is a nice change.
Well, no shit sherlock. Every OS, including Linux, is easily crackable if you have access to the hardware.
1. Put your boot OS on a CD (let's say linux, for fun). Make the OS very simple, and able to mount an encrypted filesystem RW. 2. Make the boot OS require a user enter the key to decrypt the encrypted FS. 3. Eject the CD and take it away from the computer once boot is complete & disable keyboard access.
So, no, not every OS is "easily crackable" if you have access to the hardware.
Could you break this with enough physical access (replace keyboard/put in video/whatever)? Sure. But that's not what I'd call easily crackable.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and if you can afford an Xserve it would be really great. The 5.3 release is now Mac OS X only. Previous versions let you develop on Mac OS X or Windows and deploy on Windows, Mac OS X Server or Solaris. Now only Mac OS X server is supported for deployment. You must buy the OS X server license to get a deployment license for 1 server. (minimum 500 dollars) Also, 5.3 is free to develop with on OS X, but OS X server still does not ship with 5.3 licenses. There are many bugs in 5.3 as well, although it is a development version and only available through ADC right now.
To clarify a few points:
1. It is dev on OSX only - yup.
2. They only sell deployment licences for OSX Server - yup.
3. BUT! At WWDC they stated that you can deploy the development version on any java platform. They also stated that they were not lawyers, so whatever.
The learning curve is steep!
I have yet to find any new bugs in 5.3 - though the new webobjects builder (web UI design) is certianly more flakey (save early, save often).
I don't read the apple mailing list, so I don't know what they say there, but there has been a point releast for the first time in a couple of years, so I don't think it is dead.
What I *do* think is that the company isn't sure what they are going to do with it - the fact that the developer version is free and can be used for deployment on any platform makes me think there have been changes in strategy recently.
I've used FreeBSD for years. years and years. Back in the 4 days (4.5?) we were told we'd get a native Java (modern). It failed to happen, and for some reason the FreeBSD train seemed to ship versions way more often than it used to.
/usr/ports system. If I /usr/ports
/rant
My other big gripe has been the
cd
make update
I expect it to do the right thing (which may be quiz me on how I want to update, etc, the first time) and for it to all happen magically. The fact that it does NOT magically do that out of the box pisses me off. Yeah, I want my server software provider to be customer oriented. I hear they are actually doing something right in that area coming up. 'Bout freakin time.
My next server will be OSX. BSD, native Java, no "recompile everything" for things like the OpenSSH bug a year or so ago. Magical updates.
Exactly like that! Thanks.
I'm curious to know if there is any kind of off-site co-op. You know - you store my data, and I'll store someone's. Encrypted, blah blah blah.
Call me a commie - but why not?
In my "Computers and Society" class in CompSci (which I took in my junior year), the TA asked "Who is in Computer Science because they like to program?"
... something else.
I raised my hand.
I looked around.
I was the only one in a class of about 25 with my hand up.
I dropped out around the end of that quarter, and went on to do what I love doing, and not wasting time with folks who were there for
Are we living in a society with no honor? Are we living in a time when everything that is wrong is okay, the "poor me" I did not mean to do it, but it was too tempting?
What you're selling is personal irresponsibility under the guise of personal responsibility.
If I open a bank and leave the place empty and unlocked at night, it is not my fault that people walk in and take all the money. It is their fault.
But it is absolutely my fault that I didn't lock things up securely. There ARE bad people out there. To imagine otherwise is one's own fault - there is more than enough evidence to support that notion. The bank in the example is being irresponsible. It is their fault that they didn't take the appropriate precautions.
If the WiFi is broadcasting into my home, it is reducing my ability to use the bandwidth myself, secured or not.
Take that up with the FCC. You can't do much about your neighbors tree that does NOT hang over your yard, but which blocks your sun/view. At least not in this neighborhood. If you want a clear view, you should take up the issue with the FCC and demand that nobody be able to use WiFi that [may] interfere with their neighbor's. But that would suck, so we have the rules we have (which may also suck, but that's another story).
And if the neighbor says "hey, those apples are mine - please let me come over and gather them up", my response would be "Okay. Don't forget to rake up the leaves that fall on my side this autumn too then".
Right - the point is that you start a conversation and hopefully arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Like how about I pitch in some and another neighbor pitches in some, and we all get more bandwidth than any of us would have had individually.
But when the apple tree hangs over your yard, nobody would sue you for making apple pie from the apples above your yard.
Well, nobody reasonable.
If the WiFi is broadcasting into my home, you'd better believe I'm gonna use it.
But if the apple tree is netted, or the neighbor comes over and says "hey, those apples are mine - please let me come over and gather them up", we're talking about something altogether different.
Likewise if the WiFi is secured.
This is true, but only so far as it's a possibility. Plus many of us use a hardware firewall. Rootkits won't beat that.
... Just like SPF, except SPF doesn't totally change SMTP...
Plus all the time the zombie's host is offline, the clients aren't getting their messages. And many ISPs have restrictions on their customers running servers - all the incoming connections would be a red flag.
When the zombie host changes IP - oops all those messages vanish.
Plus the zombie has to know the IP address, many hosts are using NAT.
All this is true, but still makes it trivial for the zombie nets to decide on a few nodes that remain up, and send out receipts from the rest.
It would make identifying the senders trivial. Then something can be done.
Who writes these titles? Do they even read the submission, let alone the article... (extra scorn if the submitter wrote the title)
Idiots do. See also today's "SPF (anti-spam system) is approved by IETF". It is neither aniti-spam, nor approved.
You're not new here - you should know that!
They can send out LESS traffic (just notifications)...
This is entirely true. But they get more incoming traffic, with extra overhead.
Not buying it. The incoming request is trivial, right? "Give me the message for receipt: BLAH". That is not meaningfully more than SMTP HELO junk. What's more, you could send 1000's of phishing receipts "joebloe@hoser.com" and only have to feed the ones that come back for the message. This makes phishing easier. And by easier, I mean trivial - imagine 1000 zombies sending out receipts 24/7; each one just a few 10s of bytes. Shudder.
Zombie PC's will still be the preferred senders.
You will still be able to host messages on any machine and send out receipts from other machines.
XP service pack 2 brings a software firewall by default. When incoming connections are prevented, zombies will be unable to host.
You're kidding, right? Once a machine is rooted, down goes the firewall.
And it will be costly to set up a permanent host with enough bandwidth. Sure you can still spam but how much more is it gonna cost when you can't use zombies.
There is just a little more overhead in finding the zombies that are up 24/7. And given that they'll all continue to congregate on irc nets, it's a trivial process to manage.
You didn't mention that the zombies could still send messages from the hosts email accounts. This is true, but immediately idenitifies the zombie!
I don't get it. How is that a relief? Who would do that? How is that substantially different from SMTP, where I know the transmitting IP address and can determine if they are a spam sender/relay?
You're just making the spammer's job easier. They can send out LESS traffic (just notifications), and wait for the receivers to retry retrieving the message until they have a moment to spare.
Zombie PC's will still be the preferred senders.
You will still be able to host messages on any machine and send out receipts from other machines.
As the parent said, you're just providing verification of the reciever's address. Your notion seems to solve nothing.
I have to include this sentence because slashdot thinks I'm yelling.
:-)
Here is another sentence. Slashdot can be so pedantic.
FIX THIS SHIT TACO YOUR SMARTER THEN THIS CRAP!
FIX THIS SHIT, TACO; YOU'RE SMARTER THAN THIS CRAP!
But maybe you're not?
Check it out!
Not everyone can just drop everything at will, even on a desktop system. Sometimes programs must stay up.
If it is a desktop system - used by a real human being - and it "must stay up", then you're an ass. Systems crash all by themselves. Only a fool would put a mission critical "must stay up" program on a user's desktop.
Help me out here - give me 3 examples.
How about things like "I have programs open which I cannot close"
I don't get it. Can't close? The power button is right there - they'll close right down.
Or maybe I just don't get it.
Mmkay, just one quick showcase. My logitech usb mouse has a windows driver, which needs restart when installed, then I tweak its settings.
Yeah, so does mine, but it was a month before I decided to install it for the extra functionality. The first time I just plugged it in and it worked. This on Win2K and OSX. I'd hope that the same would be true on *bsd/linux/etc.
And when you said "tweak its settings", I bet you didn't mean by hand. And you didn't mean you had to guess or look up the right magic online.
As for the "and I had to reboot the machine" bullshit -- nobody gives a fuck. If you are in a situation where it's bad for you to reboot your machine, and you don't have redundant servers, you're just an ass. If you're not in that situation, WTF do we care?
Speed isn't all about speed. Though I'm a hardware simpleton, I do wonder if we'd be better off (after 2 cores) with simply adding a ton more cache.
From what I understand of it, Germany's solution seems the best. For all products, it is the retailer's responsibility to recycle or appropriately dispose of the packaging/leftover material. This means that (for example) supermarkets can pressure snackfood manufacturers to not super-package their products (big plastic boxes). It puts resellers in the position of being the consumer's advocate for sane packaging - which is a nice change.
I *assume* it is the same for computers there...
No shit!
So much for "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
How about "Dupes for Nerds. Stuff that mattered sometime last week."
In short:
http://www.macminicolo.net/
Ah - right. Thanks for the clarification.
I've used IPFW on FreeBSD on my server box for years and years, and never cared for anything more.
Java support on OpenBSD is crap. PF support on MacOS X is crap. Depends on your needs.
PF?
For me, it was a very cheap way of getting a co-located host (the mini is a lot smaller than a 1U server, and so hosting was cheap).
I'm very curious to know how cheap, and where. If you don't reply here, I'll try to email you.
In a headless box, most of the benefits of OS X are lost (assuming I am too cheap to pay for OS X server - which costs more than the Mini itself).
Gotta disagree with you there. But I guess you don't use java at all, which is a must for me.
This gives you a secure server, which can easily be administrated remotely.
My server is running OSX on an old tower; headless, keyboardless, mouseless.
Oh, and unlike OS X, you can upgrade things like Apache separately from the core OS.
I don't get it. There are plenty of 3rd party apache distro's for OSX - or just compile it yourself...
Well, no shit sherlock. Every OS, including Linux, is easily crackable if you have access to the hardware.
1. Put your boot OS on a CD (let's say linux, for fun). Make the OS very simple, and able to mount an encrypted filesystem RW.
2. Make the boot OS require a user enter the key to decrypt the encrypted FS.
3. Eject the CD and take it away from the computer once boot is complete & disable keyboard access.
So, no, not every OS is "easily crackable" if you have access to the hardware.
Could you break this with enough physical access (replace keyboard/put in video/whatever)? Sure. But that's not what I'd call easily crackable.